Rachel V. answered • 03/16/21
History, Math, and English Tutor
First off is the offering itself. The Bible says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Abel brought a lamb. But Cain brought produce. And an accepted offering has to have blood.
secondly is the heart behind it. Abel brought a sacrifice in submission to God. But the context suggests that Cain’s motives were not pure.
Most translations refer to Abel's offering as a "more acceptable" sacrifice or a "better" sacrifice. However, Hebrews offers a further insight, which God no doubt honors because it came from his heat: "By faith." In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus addresses this distinction in a revolutionary way.
Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.
Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.
Answers · 2
Answers · 1
Answers · 1
Answers · 1
Answers · 3
Jeffrey N.
5.0 (263)
Peri H.
5.0 (156)
Jessica B.
4.8 (99)
Cameron B.
As a point of clarification: not all sacrifices in the Pentateuch are Blood sacrifices (i.e. sacrifices for the sake of remission of sin). In the context of Gen. 4, the author's statement, "Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground (vs.2)..." suggests that the sacrifice being performed would fit within the context of "First Fruits." Lev. 2, provides instructions for grain offering of First Fruits, which was supposed to be the "finest." Lev. 6:14-23 echoes this point. What seems then to be the issue with Cain's offering is not the lack of blood for atonement, but rather the fact that he simply brought produce, not his "finest" or "first fruits" (whereas the author highlights Abel's offering as "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock." Gen. 4:4).04/06/21